The original story was not long enough to make a two hour movie. Two hours is the average movie length today. Some material had to be added.
So you are asking for things to be expanded upon that didn't even exist in the short story. These elements of gay life were fabricated by the screen writers and added also.
Yes Clyde, it is very clear the Proulx short story is not long enough to fill out a 2 hour screen script for a major motion picture.Of course the screen play had to be expanded over the short story, the question posed here concerns not the expansion, but the choices the screenwriters made in creating the expansion. And, I've been working part-time/off-and-on in the screenplay vineyard for some while now. Because of the length issue, turning great short stories into great screen plays can sometimes be a job of delicate cuttings and massive slathering pastings. Also, many scenes will read well in literature but fall flat on the camera, back stories have to be told in some fashion, hopefully other than the 'voice of God' over-narration - not every director can be as resourceful as Billy Wilder in handling a run thru narration.
But, what a screenwriter chooses to cut and especially what he or she chooses to expand may make statements about their predispositions towards certain subjects, or it may tell us what is their target audience.
You and I will disagree about the Arellano essay, and that is OK as we both see BM as a powerful film.
Clyde, you bet I'm aware of the divergences the screenplay makes from the short story, I'm kind of obsessed with it in fact.In offering examples of potential additions to the dialog in the screenplay that were not used, I offered Jack's closeted life (away from Ennis) only as a counterpoint to the vastly expanded scenes of his heterosexual life. Choices were made by these screenwriters to only lightly touch on Jack's closeted life (away from Ennis), but to emphasize his life with Lureen. Those decisions speak of something beyond what is immediately obvious.